Annotated agenda — Chula Vista City Council, January 25, 2022

1. CALL TO ORDER
Public Comments:

2. ROLL CALL
Public Comments:

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE Public Comments:

4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
Public Comments:

4.1 Oaths of Office
Public Comments:

Candice Custodio-Tan - Human Relations Commission
Lynne Pine - Veterans Advisory Commission
Vikki Robinson Opeodu - Housing Advisory Commission

4.2 Presentation of a Proclamation to Southwestern College Student Xiomara Villarreal-Gerardo for Award-Winning Journalism Public Comments:

5. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 5.1 through 5.8)
Public Comments:

All items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered and acted upon by one motion. Anyone may request an item be removed for separate consideration.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Council approve the recommended action on the below consent calendar items; 5.1 - 5.4 and 5.6 to 5.8.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Council approve the recommended action on the below consent calendar item 5.5.

5.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes
Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. Draft Minutes - June 1, 2021.pdf
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve the minutes dated: June 1, 2021

5.2 Waive Reading of Text of Resolutions and Ordinances Public Comments:

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Approve a motion to read only the title and waive the reading of the text of all resolutions and ordinances at this meeting.

5.3 Consideration of Request for Excused Absences
Public Comments:

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Consider requests for excused absences as appropriate.

5.4 Measure P Citizens’ Oversight Committee: Amend the Municipal Code to Change the Number of Committee Members from 16 to 9 Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. Staff Report Measure P COC Ordinance Amendment - 21-0199.pdf

2. Ordinance - Measure P - Membership.pdf

3. Ordinance - Strikeout - Underline.pdf
Report Number
:
21-0199
L
ocation
:

No specific geographic location
D
epartment
:

City Manager
Environmental Notice
:

The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the activity qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt an ordinance amending Municipal Code chapter 2.61 regarding the Measure P Citizens Oversight Committee to change the number of committee members from 16 to 9. (Second Reading and Adoption)

5.5 Sunbow II Land Use Amendments: Rezoning an Existing Vacant Parcel from Industrial to Residential Use Resulting in 718 New Units and Approving an Associated Development Agreement Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. Staff Report Sunbow II, Phase 3 - 22-0050 ta.pdf

2. Ordinance A - MPA20-0006 Rezoning the Sunbow II, PA23 Project Area.pdf

3. Ordinance B - MPA21-0014 Development Agreement with ACI Sunbow.pdf

4. Development Agreement (ACI Sunbow LLC) (1).pdf

5. Written Communications.pdf

6. eComments.pdf
Location:

Sunbow, Southeast corner of Brandywine Avenue and Olympic Parkway Department:

Development Services
Environmental Notice:

Environmental Impact Report (EIR20-0002) has been prepared.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt ordinances A) approving the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project to rezone from limited industrial to residential uses allowing up to 534 multi-family medium-high-density dwelling units and 184 multi-family high density residential dwelling units on six parcels, a 0.9-acre Community Purpose Facility site, on-site streets, open space and MSCP Preserve Open Space (Second Reading and Adoption)
; and B) approving a Development Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and ACI Sunbow, LLC (MPA21-0014) for the Sunbow II, Phase 3 Project. (Second Reading and Adoption)

5.6 Contract Amendment and Appropriation: Approve an Amendment to the Agreement with Fehr & Peers to Provide Professional Services Related to Transportation Project Cost Estimating and the Implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 743 and Appropriate Funds Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. Staff Report SB 743 Contract Amendment - 22-0030.pdf

2. 1. Competitive Bid Waiver City Council Resolution.pdf

3. 2. Fehr and Peers Contract Amendment V2.pdf
Report Number
:
22-0030
L
ocation
:

No specific geographic location
D
epartment
:

Development Services
Environmental Notice
:

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a resolution waiving the competitive bid process pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.070B.3 approving the contract amendment, and appropriating funds for that purpose. (4/5 Vote Required)

5.7 Agreement: Approve an Agreement Between the City, Otay Land Company, and Dudek for Technical and Environmental Consulting Services for the Development of the University and Innovation District Overlay Zone Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. Staff Report University Innovation District (UID) Overlay Zone - 22-0018.pdf

2. CC-Reso-UID-OverlayZone-Dudek3PtyAgt-081221-1.17.22-EScribeFinal.pdf

3. 3 Party Agreement Attachment - UID-OverlayZone-Dudek3PtyAgt-081221-1.11.22-RevFinal.pdf Report Number
:
22-0018
L
ocation
:

Village 9, Village 10, and the University Innovation District D
epartment
:

City Manager
Environmental Notice
:

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a resolution approving a three-party agreement between the City, Otay Land Company, LLC, and Dudek for technical and environmental consulting services in preparing the University and Innovation District overlay zone to facilitate the development and appropriate funds for that purpose. (4/5 Vote Required)

5.8 Funding Application: Approval to Authorize Submittal of Applications to CalRecycle's Recycling Payment Program Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. Approval to Authorize Submittal of Applications to CalRecycle's Recycling Payment Program - 22-0054.pdf

2. Resolution .pdf

3. Attachment 1. Beverage Container Recycling CityCounty Payment Program-Program Guidelines Fiscal Year 2021-22.pdf Report Number
:
22-0054
L
ocation
:

No specific geographic location
D
epartment
:

Economic Development
Environmental Notice
:

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt a resolution to authorize the City Manager or designee to submit applications to receive funding from CalRecycle’s Recycling Payment Program.

6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public Comments:

The public may address the Council on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Council but not on the agenda.

6.1 Public Comments Received for 1/25/2022.

Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. Public Comments Received 1_24.pdf

2. Public Comments.pdf

3. Public Comments Received 1_25.pdf
Alicia Granados
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,

As a member of the MMPR labor union, I support the tentative agreement approved by the MMPR negotiation team. For 10-months we have negotiated in good faith to request updated salary data and benefits and were ready to vote on our three year MOU today Tuesday January 25th but late Friday the 21st a material change was added in regards to the Wellness Incentive requiring booster vaccines. I am fully vaccinated and have received a booster shot. However, adding a material change that was never discussed during negotiations is unacceptable. We are requesting that MMPR MOU negotiations wrap up where we had a tentative agreement and place our MOU on the City Council agenda for Tuesday February 1st or no later than February 8th. Thank you.

Eddie Flores
Honorable Mayor & Councilmembers, I am a member of the MMPR group and SEIU Local 221. I have been a dedicated City employee for the last 5 years and have over 25 years of experience in my field. As a member of the MMPR labor union, we have been without any wage increase for about 30-months and have seen our below average wages fall further and further behind. Now that we have finally come to a Tentative Agreement on terms and conditions AND our first decent fair market wage increase, last minute stall tactics by the City Negotiating Team to add an additional condition of approval to the vaccination item is totally unacceptable. Note that I am fully vaccinated and boosted against COVID. However, the last-minute changes by the City negotiating team with a proposal to include booster requirements in the MOU are out of order and an unfair negotiation tactic especially when NO booster requirements had been discussed over the past 10 months. This type of approach and 11th hour changes to a Tentative Agreement by the City negotiating team should not be supported by City Leadership. Enough is enough!

We are requesting that MMPR MOU negotiations wrap up where we had Tentative Agreement and place our MOU on the City Council agenda for Tuesday, February 1st. Thank you.

MMPR member
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers, I support MM/PR's tentative agreement as it was written last week. I was going to vote YES today, but the vote has been delayed due to changes presented by the City's negotiating team. This delay will cause another paycheck to pass by without fair wages. The changes were not presented until after tonights agenda was published so we do not have the chance to have our voices heard to Council directly in closed session about this.

Silvia Cosio
MM/PROF negotiating team reached a Tentative Agreement (TA) with City; salary equity and essential worker compensation for fully vaccinated members. At the eleventh hour the City is changing the terms of the agreement acting in an unfair manner that warrants unfair labor practices. Councilmembers recently rallied in support of labor groups fighting for fair labor and wages. MMPR members are requesting City Councilmembers support for internal labor and a fair contract with a yes vote on the Tentative Agreement.

Tessa Nguyen
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers, I am a member of the MidManagers/Professionals (MMPR) bargaining group. I have served the City and its residents for 16 years as a dedicated employee. I support MMPR’s tentative contract as discussed and approved by the MMPR negotiation team. The MMPR contract negotiations have taken far too long (over TEN months) and everyday this drags out is a negative impact to MMPRs members and our families as inflation continues to increase and our salaries are not adjusted accordingly. Our membership was ready to vote on our tentative agreement with the City however in the 11th hour a material change was added with regard to the Wellness Incentive requiring booster vaccines. This concern is not about being “boosted” (I am fully vaccinated and have received a booster shot), but it is about changing the terms of the tentative agreement and continuing a delay of the ratification of our much-needed new and fair contract. Requiring boosters to get our deal was never discussed and never part of negotiations. This was slipped in at the end, is a regression and is absolutely an unfair labor practice. We are asking the City to honor what was negotiated and get this done now.

Pat Garcia
Honorable Mayor and Council. I am a member of the the MMPR group. I would like to take the opportunity to please encourage you all to make right the wrong that is holding up our tentative agreement. I like all other staff would like to get this all wrapped up so we can move forward. Now is the time you can show us we matter and correct the situation. Thank you for your time.

Mary Radley
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,

My comment relates to the current MOU negotiations with the Middle Managers and Professional group. I had been looking forward to the completion of the negotiations with the MOU of this group which represents my position. I understood that a tentative agreement had been reached. However I was informed that after the tentative agreement was reached an additional request was made of staff from HR representatives . This is not in the spirit of good faith negotiating and would hope that union members will get an opportunity to vote on the tentative agreement reached prior to the recent request. The MOU could then be placed on the City Council agenda for February 1, 2022 or February 8, 2022 at the latest. I think that I speak for others when I say that it’s time to finalize the three year MOU and move on with our work with the City and residents. Thank you.

Mike Jensen
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
You recently stood up for labor outside the City, we ask that you do so for your own union employees who are now being wronged with a bait and switch attempt. Two specific last-minute regressions by the City lead negotiator include:

1. Attempting to sneak in booster requirements for the wellness incentive that was already negotiated both verbally and in writing.

2. Changing the language regarding when wage increases begin from "within the pay period council adopts the resolution" to trying to sneak it to the following pay period.

This is the lead City negotiator changing the very language the City has included in their initial written offer and all counter offers to date. Things like this have gone on for far too long. This is not a game to our members who have gone without a COLA for over two years, and the majority of them have been paid significantly below the median for years. We accepted wage increases well below inflation to get these negotiations settled with 46 of our members moving up to median. At the end of this MOU we will all be behind again. The Tentative Agreement was reached, our members were ready to vote today, and Friday night happened. This last-minute attempt to sneak in changes is unethical, dishonest, and legally qualifies as an unfair labor practice. She is disrespecting the City's laborers with these tactics. We need to put a stop to these practices and get this contract signed.

Claudia Block
Honorable Mayor and Council,
My name is Claudia Block and I am a member of the City’s MMPR group. I have dedicated 16 years of service to the City and have served honorably and proudly. I keep my commitments, contribute to continuous improvement efforts, respect City policy, and support my peers. I do my best to ensure that my actions align with the City’s values and are in the best interest of the City. Writing this is disheartening, as I expect the City to take equal care in exhibiting honorable and ethical behavior towards its employees.

This weekend we received great news that a tentative agreement was reached with the City. Today we learned that a last-minute change was made by the City after the agreement had been reached. This unilateral decision changed the wellness incentive requirements from fully vaccinated to fully vaccinated with booster. This decision impacted many in our group and appears to be last-ditch effort to minimize the monetary value of our contract.

As a fully vaccinated/boostered employee, this is not about boosters. This is a matter of the City choosing not to honor their word. Boosters were never discussed in negotiations and without fair bargaining, adding that stipulation is unfair and will affect many families. I respectfully ask the City Council to end this long season of unfair wages and difficult negotiations by compelling the City to act honorably and move forward with its original agreement without the booster stipulations.

Manuel Medrano
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council members, A last-minute condition added by the City Negotiating Team to require an additional condition of approval on the vaccination/booster item is totally unacceptable, not for the nature of the requirement but for the abrupt manner in which it was presented. We believe that it amounts to an Unfair Labor Practice. For 10-months we have negotiated in good faith and were prepared to vote on our three year agreement today Tuesday January 25th but late Friday the 21st, the last twist to this negotiation saga was dropped on our laps. We are requesting that MMPR MOU negotiations wrap up with a tentative agreement and for it to be placed on a City Council agenda no later than Tuesday February 8th. Thank you.

Jose Gomez
Honorable Mayor & Council. At our MMPR tentative MOU voting meeting. I was made aware the the HR Director made an 11th hour change to a previously agreed item. This is NOT bargaining in good faith! The $3000 Wellness should not be a deal breaker, but the Director has decided that it is. I was ready to vote YES on the tentative MOU, but this change has creating a negative financial impact & a potential long term morale impact. Please support the previously agreed upon MOU.

Victor De La Cruz
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I support MMPRs tentative contract as discussed and approved by the MMPR and City negotiating teams. We were invited to vote on the tentative contract today and the team informed us that another term was added by the City's negotiating team at the last minute which requires the COVID booster to qualify for the wellness incentive. I am personally not opposed to that clause but to introduce it after you have an agreement in principle does not follow fair negotiation practices. This has now delayed the unit’s vote to approve this agreement, which will now delay proposed salary and rate increases. I encourage your support and direction to the City's negotiation team to remove the new clause and approve the agreement as originally proposed.

Thank you,
Victor
Jerry Quijencio
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,

I am a member of the MidManagers/Professionals (MMPR) bargaining group and support MMPR’s tentative contract as discussed and approved by the MMPR negotiation team. The MMPR contract negotiations have taken far too long (over TEN months) and everyday this drags out is a negative impact to MMPRs members and our families as inflation continues to increase and our salaries are not adjusted accordingly. Our membership was ready to vote on our tentative agreement with the City however in the 11th hour a material change was added with regard to the Wellness Incentive requiring booster vaccines. This concern is not about being “boosted” (I am fully vaccinated and have received a booster shot), but it is about changing the terms of the tentative agreement and continuing a delay of the ratification of our much-needed new and fair contract. Requiring boosters to get our deal was never discussed and never part of negotiations. This was slipped in at the end, is a regression and is absolutely an unfair labor practice. We are asking the City to honor what was negotiated and get this done now. Thank you! Boushra Salem
As a member of the MMPR labor union, we have been without any wage increase for about 30-months now and have seen our below average wages fall further and further behind. Now that we have finally come to a Tentative Agreement on terms and conditions AND our first decent fair market wage increase, last minute stall tactics by the City Negotiating Team to add an additional condition of approval to the vaccination item is totally unacceptable and we feel that it amounts to an Unfair Labor Practice. Our contract expired on June 30, 2021, a period of 7-months ago.

For 10-months or so we have negotiated in good faith to request updated salary data and benefits and were ready to vote on our three year MOU today Tuesday January 25th but late Friday the 21st, the last twist to this never-ending negotiation marathon was dropped on our laps. Enough is enough! We are requesting that MMPR MOU negotiations wrap up where we had tentative agreement and place our MOU on the City Council agenda for Tuesday February 1st Francisco Rivera
As a member of the MMPR labor union, we have been without any wage increase for about 30-months now and have seen our below average wages fall further and further behind. Now that we have finally come to a Tentative Agreement on terms and conditions AND our first decent fair market wage increase, last minute stall tactics by the City Negotiating Team to add an additional condition of approval to the vaccination item is totally unacceptable and we feel that it amounts to an Unfair Labor Practice. Our contract expired on June 30, 2021, a period of 7-months ago.

For 10-months or so we have negotiated in good faith to request updated salary data and benefits and were ready to vote on our three year MOU today Tuesday January 25th, but late Friday the 21st, the last twist to this never-ending negotiation marathon was dropped on our laps. Enough is enough! We are requesting that MMPR MOU negotiations wrap up where we had tentative agreement and place our MOU on the City Council agenda for Tuesday February 1st or no later than February 8th. Thank you.

Vice-President MMPR Chapter
Mark Caro
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,

Coleen Wisniewski
Good evening Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
As a member of the MM/PR group, I support MM/PRs tentative contract as discussed and approved by our negotiation team. Over the last 10 months, the MMPR negotiation team has diligently worked to provide the City with all the evidence and data needed to support our original request. However, this process has taken far too long. Our negotiation team agreed to the terms the City laid out last week and our union was ready to vote today. However, late last Friday evening the City's team added a clause that was never discussed during the 10-month negotiation period. While I have received my covid booster, requiring boosters to get the long-discussed wellness incentive was never part of negotiations. This was slipped in at the last minute and is likely an unfair labor practice. We are asking the City to honor what was negotiated through the collective bargaining process and to please get this done ASAP. These negotiations have gone on far too long and the MM/PR members have been patiently waiting for consensus – the time is now.

I thank you in advance, Mayor & Council, for listening to and supporting your workers.

Claudia Block
My name is Claudia Block and I am a member of the City of Chula Vista’s Middle-Managers and Professionals (MMPR) group. I am a Sr. Management Analyst with 16 years of dedicated service to the City of Chula Vista. I have served honorably and proudly. I have done everything in my power to keep my commitments, contribute to continuous improvement efforts, respect City policy, and support my peers. I do my best to ensure that my actions as a City employee align with the City’s values and are in the best interest of the City. Having to write this letter is disheartening, as I expected that the City would take equal care in exhibiting honorable and ethical behavior towards its employees.

This weekend our group received the great news that a tentative agreement had finally been reached between our bargaining unit and the City. Today, however, we learned that a last-minute, and quite frankly, upsetting, material change to that agreement was made Friday night, after the agreement had been reached. A unilateral decision was made that changed the qualifications of the wellness incentive from simply fully vaccinated to fully vaccinated with booster and an added commitment for future boosters as they become available. This decision impacted a large portion of our group and appears to be last-ditch effort to minimize the monetary value of our contract.

As a fully vaccinated/boostered employee, this is not about whether people are boosted. This is a matter of the City choosing Cheryl Goddard
Honorable Mayor & City Councilmembers,
I am a City Senior Planner, MM/PR member & proud SEIU Local 221 member. I have served on this year’s MM/PR negotiations team. This has been a long TEN-month process & our negotiation team has come to a Tentative Agreement with the City. We were scheduled to take the Tentative Agreement to our members for a vote only to find out that the City, admittingly at its sole discretion, added language mandating booster shots in order to receive the agreed to Wellness Stipend. The added language also mandates members to continue to receive boosters as they become eligible. COVID Boosters have NEVER been a topic during this TEN-month negotiation process. The City’s negotiation team agrees this has NEVER been discussed during negotiations. The MMPR negotiation team and its members have patiently been working with the City on this contract. A contract that includes equity adjustments for 71% of its members who are currently being paid under median. We are ready to vote on the Tentative Agreement that was discussed & agreed to at the negotiation table. Please resolve this unfair labor practice & direct the City’s negotiation team to bring forward the contract agreed upon without the booster mandate language. Please support our fair contract, support & honor the collective bargaining process, & support City employees as you supported sanitation workers in their fight for livable wages & a fair contract.

Respectfully,
Cheryl Goddard
Michael Jensen
MidManager/Professionals bargaining team has negotiated in good faith for TEN months and we finally reached a tentative agreement with the City. In the final hours the City unilaterally changed the terms for what had already been agreed upon both verbally and in written offers. Requiring boosters to get our deal was never discussed and never part of negotiations. This was slipped in at the end. This is regression and absolutely an unfair labor practice. We are asking the City to honor what was negotiated and get this done now.

Connie Fife
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,

I support MMPRs tentative contract as discussed and approved by the MMPR negotiation team (with no booster mandate language). The MMPR contract negotiations have taken far too long. The MMPR negotiation team has worked tirelessly to provide the City with all the evidence and data needed to support our original request - but the City's negotiations team has drawn out the process for far too long and has really drained our union. Our union eventually agreed on the terms the City laid out last week and we were ready to take a vote today. However, late last friday evening the City's team added a clause in the agremeent that was NEVER even discussed during the long 10 month negotiation period. This is not right. The City keeps drawing out this negotiation and our members are taking the hit with no salary adjustments to keep up with industry standard and inflation, while continuously working to keep the City moving. The City needs to do better. Please Mayor & Council, listen to and support your workers.

Stephen Mosca
Please support the Middle Managers for Wage and Equity Increase; Essential Worker Premiums; Wellness Incentives; and, Professional Enrichment.

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Comments:

The following item(s) have been advertised as public hearing(s) as required by law.

7.1 Consideration of Protests Against an Adjustment on Collection Rates to Comply with Organic Waste Regulations Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. Written Communications Received 1_25.pdf
Monica
I had written comments but they failed to submit. This agenda item is worded incorrectly as they are requesting increases in trash, recycling, and yardwaste even though yardwaste is the only bin affected with this new change. It will actually lighten the load of the other 2 bins. Reallocate resources and stop increasing our fees. Especially for a greedy company that would not give refunds for services not rendered.

Location:

Citywide
Department:

Economic Development
Environmental Notice:

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Continue the item to 2/22/2022.

Time Certain 6:00 p.m.:

7.2 Planning Commission Appeal: Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for a 120-Bed Acute Psychiatric Hospital in the Eastlake II Planned Community, known as Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. Staff Report Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital - 22-0010.pdf

2. Attachment 1 - City Council Resolution.pdf

3. Attachment 2 - DR190012_Location_Map.pdf

4. Attachment 3 - Post-Meeting Minutes - PCR_Nov10_2021.pdf

5. Attachment 4 - Appeal - Eastlake Behavioral Health (2).pdf

6. Attachment 5 - Updated Disclosure Statement - 11.22.21.pdf

7. Attachment 6 - Planning Commission Report w-Attachments.pdf

8. Attachment 7 - PC-Reso-CUP19010FEIR-ELBH-11.04.21-RevFinal.pdf

9. Attachment 8 - DR19-0012 PC Resolution.pdf

10. Written Communications - Davis.pdf

11. Written Communications - Misc.pdf

12. Item 7.2 Written Communications Received 1_24.pdf

13. OPPOSE Item 7.2 Written Communications Received 1_24 and 1_25.pdf

14. SUPPORT Item 7.2 Written Communicaitons Received 1_24 and 1_25.pdf

15. OPPOSE Item 7.2 Written Communication Received 1_24 and 1_25.pdf

16. Item 7.2 Written Communications Received 1_25.pdf

17. Public Comment on PC item 11_10_21.pdf

18. 111021 Planning Commission presentation - FINAL.pdf

19. Item 7.2 - Appelant - Davis.pdf

20. Item 7.2 - Applicant - Madaffer.pdf

21. EBHH reference slides.pdf

22. Item 7.2 - Staff.pdf

23. 7.2 Written Communications Received 1_25.pdf
Fermin
I am in opposition of a Psychiatric Hospital in Eastlake. Scripps and Acadia do not care about the community of Eastlake. It is your responsibility city council to represent your constituents. Just thinking of the children alone that walk every day to and from school near the proposed site should be enough for you to vote against the proposed Psychiatric Hospital in Eastlake. Please listen to the citizens who live in Eastlake.

Gloria
Chula Vista City Council: Maybe if it were in your backyard, you would vehemently vote against this. You have the power to vote against this.

Angela
Surprise us CV City Council and vote against this Behavioral Psychiatric Hospital! Hear your constituents, stop ignoring us! Yvonne
I want to address the point of already having a Behavioral Health Hospital in West Chula Vista.

What are the negative impacts the community located around Moss Street have experienced that are connected to the hospital? What has the city done to rectify those negative consequences? I want to address the issue brought up about denying services to people with a disability. This is not about denying services. This is about Chula Vista addressing the negative impacts of what a behavioral hospital brings. It is a fact that communities who address mental health issues of its members do better. What I want to know is what will happen when a patient who still needs mental health services decides to decline the help and leaves the facility? Will they be taken home by the facility? Will they be taken to a homeless shelter if they do not have a home to go to? Will they be referred to a recovery program if they are addicts? Will they be allowed to roam around Chula Vista with no home to go to, no outpatient services they must attend? Who will take care of any community safety issues that arise from patients that choose to sign themselves out and stay in the community with no home to go to? What percentage of patients will be Chula Vista residents? I have not heard anyone address these issues. The facility plans look beautiful but that does not address the needs of patients who can refuse treatment and leave the facility.

Michael Friesen
This location makes no sense. Why would we put a mental hospital right in the middle of suburbia, far from transport and other services? Jamie Friesen
The reasons against this facility are well documented and explained. This is not the right location. Too close to residents, restaurants and family spaces. Too far from hospital facilities, transportation and north county residents. Our police is stretched so thin as it is, and we have heard no plans for changing that. Plus the EIR was done by the company who is involved in the development. Not to mention Acadia's shoddy record. We keep opposing this, why does it keep moving forward? Yvonne Munguia
I understand that there is a need for more mental health services in the city, county, and state. The questions the board needs to pause and do extensive research on, before making a decision is,

1. Does the location on Showroom Place best fit the needs of ALL the residents in this community? 2. What negative impacts will the community pay if the Showroom Place location is selected?

I have not seen evidence from the board that they have collected the negative consequences of putting a mental health facility less than a mile away from family- friendly businesses and schools, the impact this facility will have on members this community, and the plans to address these negative impacts. When will the council members do this research and present it to the community?

If the members cannot fully research the above and create a plan, then a mental health facility like this shouldn't be mere feet away or a couple of miles from family-friendly business and homes.

A more suitable location is necessary for both those in need of mental health services and the community as a whole. Please oppose and deny this project at it's current location. Thank you! Brandon McClintock
No one can deny the need of mental health services in the city, county, and state. What we can all question is, does this facilities location best fit the needs of those in the community and will it change the residents quality of life? No, this is absolutely not the best fit and location.

A type of facility like this shouldn't be mere feet away from homes, and numerous miles away from hospitals, major public transit hubs, and police stations. A more suitable location is necessary for both those in need of mental health services and the community as a whole. Please oppose and deny this project at it's current location. Thank you! John
This facility is less than 1/2 mile from my home and I support the addition of it. For a city as large as Chula Vista, and for how much of the population is now concentrated on the East side, it is ridiculous to think that an Eastlake family or individual has to drive all the way to 3rd Avenue to find a resource like this. Other local residents need to get past the stigma of what they think Mental Health looks like - there is not going to be someone running down the street in a straight jacket. People are suffering with mental health issues that go untreated and its no wonder, when uniformed opposition squashes these sorts of developments. A City of our size requires resources like this distributed across all its regions, not just on the outskirts or in the "older" part of town. The location makes as much sense as the addition of any Dentist Office or Medical Office Building would - this is where the people are, and people require these resources.

Roza
Oppose
Monica
I oppose the approval of the facility as it is currently being presented. This is not a black and white issue and YOU have the authority to make suggestions that will better serve the Chula Vista community this does not have to be an ALL or NOTHING decision.

Having an inhouse mental health facility geared toward PTSD and available for the military families in the area is much different than having an emergency facility housing 5150s - who will inevitably need additional care that is not available in the area.

You know you are working with a bad company when they have so many legal issues you cannot find an attorney that does not have a conflict of interest with the company! Please stop and think before signing over our rights once again to the highest bidder.

Juan
I agree a facility like this is needed; however, this selected location is not ideal. There is a residential area that is steps away, bus stop, schools, preschools, and walking trails.

Jim O'Callaghan
Good evening, Mayor, and members of the City Council. I apologize for not being able to join you this evening. On behalf of the South County Economic Development Council, I ask that you support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital. South County is the fastest growing region in San Diego County, and we need to ensure we are taking the steps necessary for our infrastructure and services to keep pace.

The events of the past couple of years have shown just how taxed our health care and behavioral health care are. Our communities are facing a growing challenge in meeting the needs of their residents when it comes mental health. While some see a stigma with mental health care the truth is there is probably not a person or family untouched by some aspect of behavioral health needs. The new hospital proposed by Scripps and Acadia is critically needed to help address these shortages.

As an organization focused on attracting and supporting a strong workforce the South County EDC believes it is imperative to ensure our communities can service all members of our community. When companies are comparing where to invest, supporting services play a key role in the decision-making process. Having a fully supported community affords businesses the opportunity to attract and retain the best talent and help grow the resources within our community.

I thank you for your time and consideration and encourage you to support the Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital.

Kevin
When something happens (and something will happen), I believe you're going to have a massive law suit on your hands, in which each one of you will be personally filed against. You have been given ample evidence and are choosing to ignore it. The city and individual members of this council will be sued (most likely class action) once something happens because of this facility.

Catherine J Zordell
The city must do its due diligence and consider other sites for this facility. this site has many problems including: lacks access to emergency room, public transportation, near many schools.

Ricardo
Bad location. Bad provider. Bad idea.

John
This is a joke right? Nothing about this makes sense. Use your brains! How is a high security ANYTHING this close to homes, schools, and bus stops, a good idea??? Xiang
I vote no.

Brent
I do not believe a proper environmental study has been conducted. We can hear the bells and intercom from Salt Creek Middle School, as well as people from the park, all of which are SUBSTANTIALLY further away than this hospital will be.

Brigitta
If this facility is so safe, why does it need 10 foot walls, locked doors, a 24 hour security guard, and an ambulance barn? Edward
Oppose vehemently
Nancy
I do not support the building of this facility with the current provider. The documentation regarding this facility clearly shows evidence that Acadia is not the type of company we want in Chula Vista.

Elizabeth Stellin
I do not support the building of this facility. There are too many unaddressed concerns and many feel the council has not engaged in a non-biased position. At a minimum, this needs to be postponed so the community can add in additional safety measures.

Amy
This proposed location is in very close proximity (steps away) from a residential area, schools, and children-oriented activity centers. Relocate to another location that will not impact a residential area.

Bill
I oppose the building of this facility. The council has not yet answered all questions regarding this project and have been unable to adequately provide certain documentations outlining the contracts between Scripps and Acadia.

I would like to see the Conditional Use Permit and terms of operation include staffing with union nurses and safety requirements for the community. I would also like to see additional safety measures added.

Another concern of mine is the Police response times in CV that already do not meet the threshold standards. How is it possible that this facility will not impact our already understaffed emergency services, when all research indicates otherwise? There is no Co-location of services such as a hospital, emergency services and other physicians.

The Environmental Impact Review is another area of concern. Why didn’t the city require a new one to be completed by a third party? How is an EIR completed by Acadia non-biased?

Why haven’t other sites been considered in Chula Vista and the surrounding county. Remember this hospital will be serving the entire county not just CV residents.

Grace
How does this location make sense for this type of use? What resources are near this location that support a behavioral health hospital? If a patient is released and doesn't have family or support systems, what happens? Is there transitional housing support, transportation? Please explain this process so that the public is better informed. Thank you Tricia
As a concerned constituent and longtime resident of the Eastlake community, I strongly oppose a behavioral psychiatric hospital in our community. As citizens we demand our voices to not only be heard, but prioritized for the safety and well-being of our children and all those living in this community. We suffer from the poor decisions made by the city council. It's time for you to stop focusing on the monetary benefit you will receive from these for-profit corporations. It was the citizens who voted you in, and we will vote you out, if this passes.

Report Number
:
22-0010
L
ocation
:
830 and 831 Showroom Place
D
epartment
:

Development Services
Environmental Notice
:

Environmental Impact Report (EIR20-0001) has been prepared.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution denying the appeal by Brad Davis and affirming the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit CUP19-0010 and Design Review Permit DR19-0012 to construct a one-story, 97,050 square-foot building consisting of a 120-bed acute psychiatric hospital on a 10.5 acre site located at 830 and 831 Showroom Place within the urbanized northeast portion of the city known as Eastlake Business Center II.

8. ACTION ITEMS
Public Comments:

The following item(s) will be considered individually and are expected to elicit discussion and deliberation.

8.1 Employee Compensation and Positions: Approval of: (1) Amended Position Counts in Various Departments; (2) Salary Adjustments for Certain Unclassified, Hourly Positions; (3) Revised Compensation Schedule; and (4) Budget Amendments Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. Staff Report Classification Plan and Compensation Schedule - 22-0026.pdf

2. Attachment 1 - Judicial Salary Memo Pay Letter 120621.pdf

3. Attachment 2 - FY 21-22 Compensation Schedule Effective 1-28-2022 (1-25-2022 Meeting).pdf

4. Resolution A - Amend Authorized Position Count and UCHR Salary Adjustments (1-25-2022 Meeting).pdf

5. Resolution B - Approved Revised Compensation Schedule (1-25-22 Meeting).pdf

6. Resolution C - Budget Amendment (1-18-22 Meeting)_Updated.pdf Tom
Why does the Mayor, Councilmembers and City Attorney receive retro salary adjustments? When retro is brought up by City employee bargaining groups, retro is off the table but there is never an explanation other than the City does not support retro pay. The City should revise their statement and say, it doesn't support retro for the majority of its employees except for elected officials. It should also provide the reason why retro is off the table for other City employees. Note, City did approve retro on 9/11/05 (Item 5) for employees. Precedent has been set.

Report Number
:
22-0026
L
ocation
:

No specific geographic location
D
epartment
:

Human Resources
Environmental Notice
:

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt resolutions (A) amending the authorized position count in various departments and salary adjustments for certain unclassified, hourly positions; (B) approving the revised Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Compensation Schedule effective January 28, 2022 to reflect the salary adjustments for certain unclassified, hourly positions and the adjusted salaries for Mayor, Councilmember and City Attorney effective July 1, 2021 and its inclusion in the revised Compensation Schedules effective July 2, 2021; August 13, 2021; September 10, 2021; November 5, 2021; November 19, 2021; December 17, 2021 and December 31, 2021, as required by the California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Section 570.5; and (C) making various amendments to the Fiscal Year 2021/22 budget for appropriating funds for that purpose. (4/5 Vote Required)

9. CITY MANAGER’S REPORTS
Public Comments:

10. MAYOR’S REPORTS
Public Comments:

10.1 Discussion and Guidance Regarding the Future Role of the Human Relations Commission with Regard to the Automated License Plate Reader Program Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. 2021-12-6- HRC_ALPR Letter.pdf
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

10.2 SR-125 Toll Road: Requesting that the San Diego Association of Governments Exercise Option to Pay Off Toll Road Debt in 2027 and Take Action to Revert Control of the SR-125 to the Calif Department of Transportation in 2027 for Operation as a Freeway Attachments
|
Public Comments

1. Resolution.pdf

2. Item 10.2 South Bay Expressway Council Presentation.pdf

11. COUNCILMEMBERS’ COMMENTS
Public Comments:

12. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
Public Comments:

13. ADJOURNMENT
Public Comments:
to the regular City Council meeting on February 1, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.

Materials provided to the City Council related to an open session item on this agenda are available for public review, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at [email protected]
or (619) 691-5041.

Chula Vista City CouncilJanuary 25, 2022

Chula Vista City Council
January 25, 2022